Delhi High Court

Baljit Kaur vs Shri Yogesh Kumar & Anr. on 15 November, 2011

Author: Manmohan Singh

          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Order Decided on:      15.11.2011

                       C.S. (OS). No.1194/2009

Baljit Kaur                                 .......Plaintiff
                       Through: Ms. Kamlakshi Singh Chauhan, Adv.
                                with Ms. Kimmi Brara, Adv.

                       Versus

Shri Yogesh Kumar & Anr.                     .....Defendants
                   Through: Defendants already ex-parte

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

1.

This is a suit for possession and permanent injunction. The

plaintiff is the owner of a flat admeasuring about 100 sq yards. The

said property is situated at 2B/73, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff

had purchased the same for a lawful consideration from the previous

owner.

2. The flat is situated on the First Floor. The chain of the title

of the said property is stated herein below:-

a. Initially the property was in the name of Smt. Sukh Devi,

W/o Shri Ram Dass, resident of 2B/73 Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi. Smt. Sukh Devi was a lessee of the same

which was leased to her by the Government of India on

various terms and conditions.

b. After the demise of Sri Sukh Devi, her son, Shri

Bhagwan Dass applied for probate vide Probate Case

No. 151/89. The same was granted in his favour.

Mutation was given to Sri Bhagwan Dass vide Letter No.

L&D O/P.S-1/491 dated 13.8.1991 by Sri Labh Singh

Chane, Dy. Land & Development Officer Government of

India, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment. Sri

Sukh Devi had two sons, Sri Bhagwan Dass and Sri

Chaman Lal. The said property was subsequently was

divided into equal part. One portion was held by each

brother.

c. Both the brothers i.e. Sri Bhagwan Dass and Sri Chaman

Lal sold the entire property to one Sri Shyam Sunder

Gupta, S/o Sri H.L Gupta, resident of B-11/5 Double

Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. And Miss Neena

Chawla, D/o Dr. Prit Singh Chawla, resident of J-150,

Rajouri Garden. A sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid as

consideration for the above transaction. Documents like

Agreement to sell, Consideration Receipt were executed

on 10.6.1996. Sale Deed was in favour of Sri Shyam

Sunder Gupta and Ms. Neena Chawla. A General Power

of Attorney was executed in the name of Sri Gaurav

Gupta, S/o Sri Shyam Sunder Gupta and Dr. Prit Singh

Chawla, S/o Sri Pradhan Singh.

d. Thereafter, Dr. Prit Singh Chawla and Sri Gaurav Singh

sold the said property to Sri. Sanjay Mahajan and Sri

Shiv Kumar Arora by Agreement to Sell. A General

Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Smt.

Neeru Mahajan, W/o Sanjay Mahajan and Smt Kamlesh

Kumari W/o Shiv Kumar Arora on 16.6.1996

e. It is pertinent to mention that Agreement Sell and

General Power of Attorney got in separate names for the

reason that in case the sale deed is to be executed the

attorneys can execute the sale deed in favour of the

agreement holder and previous owner shall not be

required for the same.

f. On 8.10.1997, Smt Neeru Mahajan and Smt. Kamlesh

Kumari further appointed Smt. Subhash Rani, W/o Sri

Dwarka Nath, resident of 19/47, Old Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi and executed Agreement to Sell and General

Power of Attorney, Receipt etc. in her favour.

g. Subsequently Smt. Subhash Rani sold the said property

for a lawful consideration and executed Agreement to

Sell dated 14.2.2001 in favour of Sri Ram Harchandani,

S/o Sri C.K. Harchandani, resident of H-305 New

Rajinder Nagar and Power of Attorney was executed in

favour of Smt. Sheela Harchandani.

3. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 and

defendant No.2 are sons of Smt. Subhash Rani and they are in illegal

and unauthorized possession of the said property.

4. Plaintiff states that while selling the property, Smt.

Subhash Rani requested Sri Ram Harchandani to allow her to stay for

sometime while she makes alternative arrangement for her stay. She

assured that she would vacate the property and hand over possession

within 5-6 months.

5. Smt. Sheela Harchandani and Smt. Subhash Rani had a

friendly relation and on that good faith Smt. Subhash Rani was

allowed to stay there for 5-6 months. However, Sri Subhash Rani did

not vacate the property despite various assurances. After the demise

of Sri Subhash Rani defendant Nos. 1 & 2 continued to live there.

6. Having failed to get possession of the said property from

defendant 1 & 2, Smt. Sheela Harchandani decided to dispose of/sell

the said property. The same was purchased by the plaintiff. The

plaintiff and the previous owner (Sri Ram Harchandani and Smt.

Sheela Harchandani) went to the defendants and tried to persuade

them to vacate the property. The defendants gave all their assurances

that they would vacate the property.

7. Plaintiff paid a huge consideration and purchased the

property on 9.4.2009 vide duly registered document at Office of the

Sub Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

8. After purchase of the said property various meetings were

held between the plaintiff and defendants along with the intervention

of previous owner but ultimately the defendants denied to vacate the

premises. Since the predecessor of the defendants was permitted to

live in the said property for sometime as licensee, she continued to

live there and after her demise both her sons stepped into her shoes

and continued to live there as licensee.

9. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the license was ipso

facto terminated when previous owner sold the property to the

plaintiff. In view of that it is submitted by the plaintiff that the

defendants are in illegal possession of the said property.

10. Various requests were made on 15.4.2009, 20.4.2009 and

23.4.2009 by the plaintiff to hand over the possession but the said

requests were not acceded to. However, ultimately the defendants

refused to hand over possession.

11. Defendants also threatened to handover the possession to

some third party after taking illegal gratification, if the plaintiff tries

to take legal action against the defendants. Threat was given on

23.4.2009 when defendants refused to hand over possession to the

plaintiff. Again on 29.04.2009 the defendants threatened the plaintiff

with the same consequences. Hence the plaintiff was bound to take

recourse of law and filed the said suit.

12. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had already

terminated the license orally on 29.4.2009. it is submitted by the

plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title interest on the said

property. When the property was sold to Harchandani the documents

were witnessed by defendant No.1 son of Smt. Subhash Rani.

defendant No. 1 also singed a no objection if his mother sold the said

property.

13. The defendants were served on 10.08.2009 and were

proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.01.2010. The plaintiff was

granted time to produce ex-parte evidence.

14. The plaintiff Smt. Baljit Kaur PW-1 has tendered her

examination-in-chief by way of affidavit being Ex.PW-1/A. She has

proved the following documents :

(i) Letter No.L&D.O./PS-I/491 dated 13.08.1991 signed by Sh.

Labh Singh Chane, Dy. Land & Development Officer, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.(Exh. PW1/1)